Daily Judgments of 18 March
Stay informed with our daily judgment summaries from the Supreme Court and major High Courts. We bring you key legal insights, ensuring you never miss an important ruling.
Supreme Court of India
C.A. NO.-001420-001422-2025
Parties: SAJITHABAI VS THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
Judge(s): JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE MANMOHAN
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The Court held that the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 and the Special Rules, 1960 are separate and distinct sets of rules governing different services. The court ruled that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960, which gives an option to Assistant Engineers to choose between the diploma or degree quota for further promotions, applies to all Assistant Engineers regardless of how they were initially appointed to that post. The court rejected the interpretation that a person who opts for the diploma quota cannot later switch to the degree quota, as it would lead to absurd results. The court also held that the Supreme Court's decision in Chandravathi P.K. v. C.K. Saji is not applicable to the present case, as the issue involved is different. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court.
ARBIT.PETITION NO.-000048-2023
Parties: DISORTHO S.A.S. VS MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR, JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The Court held that the law governing the arbitration agreement is Indian law based on the parties' implied choice, as the arbitration agreement was part of the contract which expressly provided for Indian law to govern. While the place of arbitration was designated as Bogota, Colombia, the Indian courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes in India, with the venue to be mutually decided by the parties and the arbitrator, and the arbitral rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to apply.
C.A. NO.-003847-003848-2025
Parties: ZAID SHEIKH VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR, JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Area of Law: Education Law
The Court allowed the appeal of the appellant, setting aside the orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging his ineligibility for the B.A.M.S. degree course.
The Court held that despite the appellant's initial ineligibility for the course due to not having passed English in his 10+2 exam, the peculiar facts of the case, such as the appellant being provisionally admitted to the course and subsequently passing English, ought to have been given more weightage by the High Court.
The Supreme Court directed the authorities to allow the appellant to complete his B.A.M.S. degree and internship, and to issue him the degree certificate accordingly.
CRL.A. NO.-000586-2017
Parties: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS CHATRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court allowed the State's appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment of acquittal. The Court restored the conviction of the accused by the Trial Court for sexually assaulting the minor victim 'V'. The Court found that the High Court had not adequately appreciated the evidence, particularly the medical evidence and the testimony of the eyewitness, in overturning the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and directed the accused to surrender to serve the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
SLP(C) NO.-004484-2020
Parties: PARMINDER SINGH VS HONEY GOYAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI, JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Area of Law: Compensation Law
The Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant from ₹15,25,600/- to ₹36,84,000/-. The Court increased the appellant's assessed monthly income from ₹5,600/- to ₹7,500/- and applied a 40% future prospects increase, arriving at a monthly income of ₹10,500/-. The Court also awarded additional compensation for attendant charges, special diet, pain and suffering, future medical expenses, and loss of marriage prospects.
Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)-2966/2016
Parties: DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs ANIL LUTHRA
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court of Delhi held that the respondent employee, Anil Luthra, was entitled to the benefit of the Pension Scheme introduced by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) in 1992, as he had failed to exercise his option to continue under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme within the 30-day period stipulated in the 1992 Office Order.
The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in S.L. Verma and Shashi Kiran, which established that the failure to exercise the option within the stipulated time would result in the employee being deemed to have switched over to the Pension Scheme, regardless of whether the employee later continued to contribute to the CPF Scheme and availed its benefits.
The court rejected the DTC's arguments that the respondent's claim was barred by delay and laches, finding that the right to pension is a continuing cause of action. However, the court modified the Tribunal's order to restrict the arrears payable to the respondent to 3 years prior to the filing of the original application before the Tribunal. The respondent was also directed to refund the CPF benefits received, with interest.
ITA-53/2025
Parties: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI Vs D LIGHT ENERGY P. LTD.
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court of Delhi held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the assessee's international transactions, as the assessee is a distributor that purchases products from its associated enterprise and resells them without any value addition. The High Court disagreed with the Revenue's arguments that the warranty cost claim and reimbursement of expenses are inextricably linked with the purchase of solar products, and that these transactions should be aggregated for the purpose of determining the most appropriate method. The High Court relied on its previous judgments which have held that RPM is the most appropriate method in cases where the assessee is a distributor without any value addition to the imported products.
FAO-283/2018
Parties: ASHVAL VADERAA Vs AMITABH NARAYAN & ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Succession Law
The High Court held that the probate petition filed by the executor of the will, Mr. Amitabh Narayan, should be dismissed. The court found several suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will by the testatrix, Ms. Karuna Raj Vaderaa, while she was admitted in the hospital.
The court observed that the testatrix was in a serious medical condition and there was insufficient evidence to establish that she was in a sound disposing mind at the time of executing the will. The court also noted that the executor, Mr. Amitabh Narayan, who had drafted the will, did not testify, and the Sub-Registrar who registered the will at the hospital was also not examined. The court held that the propounder had failed to discharge the primary onus to dispel the suspicious circumstances and establish the validity of the will.
CONT.CAS(C)-13/2020
Parties: SUNIL GUPTA Vs ANIL AGGARWAL & ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Area of Law: Contempt Law
The High Court of Delhi held that the contempt petition filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court found that the cause of action arose when the respondents failed to pay the balance amount by 31.12.2012, as per the compromise agreement dated 13.01.2009. The petitioner should have filed the contempt petition within one year from that date, i.e., by 31.12.2013. However, the petitioner filed the present petition only in 2020, which is clearly beyond the limitation period. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the violation is a "continuing wrong" and held that the mere continuing effect of a breach does not make it a continuing wrong. The Court also held that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an alternate remedy, such as the pending execution proceedings, is available to the petitioner.
W.P.(C)-7542/2017
Parties: SACHHI SHURUAAT SEWA SMITI (NGO) Vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Area of Law: Environmental Law
The High Court held that the petitioners have no legal right to claim possession and right to cultivation over the subject agricultural land, which falls under the Yamuna floodplains (Zone 'O') and is required to be freed of encroachments for the larger public interest of restoring and rejuvenating the Yamuna River.
The court found that the petitioners are rank encroachers with no valid title or interest in the land, and their repeated attempts to re-litigate the same issues that have been conclusively determined earlier constitute an abuse of the process of law. The court has referred to its earlier judgments in Mangal v. Union of India and Chander Bhan v. Delhi Development Authority, which dealt with the same set of facts and issues. The court dismissed the writ petition and imposed costs on the petitioners for filing a frivolous petition.
BAIL APPLN.-646/2024
Parties: SANDEEP @ MONU Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Sandeep, in a case registered under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. The court considered the petitioner's long custody period of over 2 years, the fact that the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the witness statements, particularly the lack of support from a key witness. The court allowed the bail application, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond and surety, and imposing certain conditions, such as reporting to the police station and not tampering with evidence or witnesses. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Bombay High Court
WP/8511/2024
Parties: ARCHANA SHAILENDRA GAIKWAD Vs SHYAM SHIVAJIRAO LOHI AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. G. MEHARE, JUSTICE SANDIPKUMAR CHANDRABHAN MORE
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that the modification made by the State Government in the posting of the petitioner and the respondent through the Government Resolution dated 13/06/2024 was arbitrary and without assigning any reasons. The court noted that the earlier posting of the petitioner at Chandrapur under the Government Resolution dated 16/03/2024 was made after considering her representations, and the subsequent modification interchanging the postings of the petitioner and the respondent within a short period of 6-7 days was highly inexplicable. The court observed that the State Government failed to provide any reasons for the modification, and this amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. The court therefore upheld the order of the Tribunal setting aside the modification.
WP/2721/2025
Parties: EKNATH RAMCHANDRA GHANDGE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE KISHORE CHANDRAKANT SANT
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court upheld the decision of the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies to cancel two resolutions passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). The court found that the first resolution, which gave the authority to operate the APMC's bank account to a member other than the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, was against the rules as the functions of the Chairman can only be exercised by the Vice-Chairman in the Chairman's absence. The second resolution, which handed over the charge of the Secretary to another person, was also held to be invalid as it was done without the prior sanction of the higher authorities as required by the law. The court concluded that both the resolutions were in violation of the relevant rules and laws governing the APMC.
WP/6537/2017
Parties: PRAMAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Area of Law: Revenue Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Praman Infrastructure Private Limited, holding that:
(i) A recital regarding the applicability of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) restrictions on a part of the land must be expressly mentioned in the principal instrument (sale deed) itself or through an annexure that is clearly referenced and incorporated, for the benefit of such limitations to be considered for stamp duty assessment.
(ii) The deed of conveyance should have explicitly stated that the vendor's leasehold rights had expired, and only the reversionary rights were being conveyed, rather than merely reciting the prior lease details. In the absence of such a specific recital, the authorities were justified in treating the transaction as a conveyance of leasehold rights for stamp duty purposes.
(iii) The authorities rightly considered the tenant-occupied portion to be 1883.73 square meters, instead of the 2241.18 square meters claimed by the petitioner, as the petitioner failed to precisely specify the exact area under tenant occupation within the instrument, as required under the law.
WP/1931/2024
Parties: PANDURANG RAJARAM INAMDAR Vs ACCELYA SOLUTION INDIA LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court held that while the plaintiff generally has an unfettered right to unconditionally withdraw a suit or abandon part of a claim under Order XXIII Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, this right is not absolute at the appellate stage after a decree has been passed by the trial court. Once rights have vested in parties under a decree, the plaintiff cannot freely withdraw the suit or abandon part of the claim to nullify the decree and deprive the defendant of the benefits accrued. The court found that the plaintiff's attempt to abandon the declaration that he was an employee of the defendant was prejudicial to the defendant, as the trial court had categorically rejected this prayer. Allowing the amendment would destroy the defendant's accrued right under the decree, which the court declined to permit.
CRA/85/2023
Parties: SANTOSH S/O SAMPATRAO CHHAJED Vs AJIT JAIWANTRAO BHISE
Judge(s): JUSTICE URMILA SACHIN JOSHI- PHALKE
Area of Law: Rent Control Law
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, held that the landlord (plaintiff) is entitled to recover possession of the suit premises under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as he has established a reasonable and bonafide requirement for the premises for his wife to start a business. The court found that the unregistered agreement between the landlord's grandfather and the tenant (defendant) cannot be relied upon to defeat the landlord's claim, and the lack of a license for the tenant's business casts doubt on the genuineness of the tenant's occupation. The comparative hardship analysis favored the landlord, as the landlord had a genuine need to use the premises while the tenant did not demonstrate significant hardship in being evicted. The court dismissed the tenant's revision petition and granted time for the tenant to vacate the premises.
ARBP/119/2024
Parties: MANMOHAN KAPANI Vs KAPANI RESORTS PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in an Arbitration Petition filed by Manmohan Kapani, has issued interim directions to protect the subject matter of the dispute pending the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal. The court has found a prima facie case that the respondents, Kapani Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Virendra Kapani, and Vaibhav Kapani, have misappropriated the funds invested by Manmohan by using the money to repay their obligations to SIDBI and release their personal guarantees and properties, without allotting the corresponding shares to Manmohan as per the agreement. The court has directed the respondents to deposit the invested amount of USD 1 million (with interest) with the court registry and restrained them from alienating the properties of Kapani Resorts and the personal property of Virendra and Vaibhav. The court has also awarded costs to Manmohan, considering the unreasonable conduct of the respondents in the proceedings.
IAL/5415/2025
Parties: MEGHA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. Vs V RAVI PRAKASH PRESIDENT RTV
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE
Area of Law: Public Interest Law
The Bombay High Court dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the petitioner, finding that the petitioner had acted in a manner that was not bona fide. The court held that the petitioner's conduct in publishing inappropriate tweets that scandalised the court, and the petitioner's suppression of material facts regarding pending litigation between the parties, were not in keeping with the requirements for a genuine PIL under the Bombay High Court PIL Rules and Supreme Court precedents. The court also found that the petitioner had failed to comply with the mandatory disclosure and affidavit requirements under the PIL rules. Accordingly, the court dismissed the PIL, without any order as to costs.
NMCD/2153/2018
Parties: THE NAVI MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER Vs ANTONY WASTE HANDLING CELL PVT. LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition filed by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) challenging an arbitral award in favor of Antony Waste Handling Cell Pvt. Ltd. The key points in the court's decision are:
1. The court held that the Ghansoli area, which was merged into Parimandal II, was covered by the arbitration agreement in the original contract between NMMC and Antony.
2. The court upheld the arbitral tribunal's decision to apply the lower rate for wet waste to mixed waste, as this was the approach approved by NMMC's own internal decision-making bodies.
3. The court rejected NMMC's arguments regarding the price escalation based on changes in the WPI base year, finding that the contract terms did not allow for such retrospective adjustments.
4. The court also upheld the arbitral tribunal's findings on the 20% annual cap on price escalation and the applicability of the contract terms to the extended period.
5. The court found the award of 15% interest per annum to be reasonable.
Calcutta High Court
FA/15/2023
Parties: M/S. TRADE CENTRE vs MAGEBE BRIDGE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court at Calcutta, in a bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff firm Trade Centre against the dismissal of its money suit against the defendant Magebe Bridge Products Private Limited.
The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose on the date the defendant denied the plaintiff's claim, and the suit was filed within the limitation period.
The court found that the plaintiff firm was registered under the Indian Partnership Act before the filing of the suit, as evidenced by the memorandum issued by the Registrar of Firms, and allowed the plaintiff to produce additional documentary evidence to corroborate the registration.
The court held that the plaintiff was able to sufficiently prove its case based on the bills, challans, and purchase registers exhibited, as well as the admissions made by the defendant's witness. The court also drew adverse inference against the defendant for not producing relevant documents.
The court found that the written statement filed by the defendant was not valid, as it was signed by a director in his personal capacity without any authority on behalf of the company.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, and partially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, awarding the claimed amount with interest.
FA/171/2024
Parties: ATASI SAHA vs SOMNATH SARKAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court at Calcutta allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court held that the suit was not maintainable in its present form, as the plaintiff did not seek any declaration of title or cancellation of the gift deed executed by Rekha in favor of the appellant.
On interpreting the 1963 deed of settlement, the court found that the settlor's intent was to exclude his daughters, not the female heirs in general. The property was vested absolutely in Rekha and Sondha, the daughters-in-law, along with their respective male heirs. After the restrictions on transfer were lifted, Rekha validly executed the gift deed in favor of the appellant, her daughter. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
WPA/28770/2024
Parties: HOOGHLY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. vs SK. ALAM ISMAIL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court of Calcutta upheld the orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority, which had directed the employer, Hooghly Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., to pay gratuity to the employee, Sk. Alam Ismail, for his 37 years of continuous service as a "badli worker".
The court found that the employee had discharged his initial burden of proof by producing relevant documents, while the employer failed to produce the best evidence in the form of attendance records and service records, despite being legally required to maintain such records. Relying on the principles of adverse inference and the best evidence rule, the court concluded that the employee was entitled to gratuity benefits under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, even though he had not completed the minimum 5 years of continuous service as a regular employee.
FMA/563/2024
Parties: PRIYANKA DAM vs WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. ORS..
Judge(s): JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court at Calcutta set aside the judgment of the learned single judge, finding that the selection process conducted by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (WBSEDCL) was flawed. The court held that WBSEDCL had improperly altered the selection procedure by considering only the interview marks instead of the cumulative marks from the written test, group discussion, and interview, as outlined in the original notification. The court further ruled that the appellant, Priyanka Dam, could challenge the selection process despite having participated in it, as the alleged deficiencies could only be determined by going through the process. The court directed WBSEDCL to grant appointment to the appellant in the post of Assistant Manager (Human Resource and Administration) within four weeks.
MAT/1140/2016
Parties: PRADIP KUMAR MODAK vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court at Calcutta held that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant, a CISF officer, was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of his involvement in a scuffle. The court found that the disciplinary proceedings followed due process and principles of natural justice, but the DA and AA failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors and the appellant's long service record before imposing the severe punishment. The High Court set aside the orders of removal, suspension, and dismissal, and directed the DA to impose a suitable minor penalty on the appellant instead, as the scuffle incident did not amount to a serious offense warranting removal from service.